Reply to: Client Medicals

[cojak]

There is no more to be done here.

Thread closed.

[Lance]

If that’s a lie we might as well ignore everything you write.
I’m easy either way.
A CLINT or a bulltulipter.

As for what it means.... squint while reading it....

[BR14]

Off topic posta removed.

Holy Willy strikes again

[NotAllThere]

Off topic posta removed.

[WTFH]

Checks employers can make on job applicants - GOV.UK



it appears to be inappropriate, especially for an IT contractor.

That’s for employer/employee. Not for business to business contracts.

[BlasterBates]

Checks employers can make on job applicants - GOV.UK

You can only ask successful candidates for a health check before hiring them if:

it’s a legal requirement, for example eye tests for commercial vehicle drivers

the job requires it, for example because your insurers need health checks on cycle couriers

it appears to be inappropriate, especially for an IT contractor.

[mb31]

We had the reverse parking thing in my last job. We also had to hold the handrail when walking up and downstairs and if we saw someone not holding the handrail then we had to log a near miss (I'm not joking).

Contractors were not pushed into attending medicals but they did have to attend mandatory health and safety training courses during which the handrail rule was drummed into us.

OH appointments at private medical companies are not cheap. It'd no doubt upset the client if I don't attend so my plan now is to disclose but do it in a way that makes me look like a great exemplar for the bipolar community. I might give them links to my posts on this forum to show them how well balanced and professional I am in comparison to the competition.

[LondonManc]

/pedant


There's no hope for some people. Was he called Darren?

I was quoting what he said. I should probably have added a (sic) for your benefit.
No, nor was it suity. But we'd have probably used suity instead of the desk to break the window. #nosensenofeeling

[Lance]

"Then feel free to follow my desk and me through this window" came the exasperated reply.

/pedant


There's no hope for some people. Was he called Darren?

[LondonManc]

a safety briefing I once had for a site, said that in the event of a fire alarm (sound of fire alarm played so you know) then walk to a safe zone.

In the event of this alarm (different noise) RUN!!!!!

I was sat in a ground floor office listening to one lad asking the boss about fire drills.
"What if the fire is stopping us exiting our office?"
"Then feel free to follow my desk and I through this window" came the exasperated reply.

[Lance]

I reckon an explosion would move them quite quickly off site. Possibly upwards, rather than along the ground.

But yes, your point (and mine) are possibly very valid to the OP. For safety reasons businesses put rules in place. If other businesses think the rules must not be applied to them, then that is their choice.

a safety briefing I once had for a site, said that in the event of a fire alarm (sound of fire alarm played so you know) then walk to a safe zone.

In the event of this alarm (different noise) RUN!!!!!

[WTFH]

When you want people offsite - you want them offsite as quickly as humanly possible - reversing adds time you may not have.

I reckon an explosion would move them quite quickly off site. Possibly upwards, rather than along the ground.

But yes, your point (and mine) are possibly very valid to the OP. For safety reasons businesses put rules in place. If other businesses think the rules must not be applied to them, then that is their choice.

[eek]

Another dull story about rules that apply to people in the "office" as well as those at other locations:
I've done some work for clients in the construction industry. On their sites, they insist that all powered vehicles are reverse parked. The main reason is that for lorries it is essential safety to reverse park cause the driver can then see clearly when they are pulling out.
Apply the rule to everyone on every site, even those where there are no lorries and you have a corporate safety policy. It's nothing to do with IR35, trying to exclude people, etc. It's their safety policy.

We don't have all the facts from the OP as to who the client is, but we're aware it's in the nuclear industry and requires security clearance. It is possible that the client has policies in place across all sites. We don't know.
The OP is a contractor. If they do not want to agree to a client request then they need to look for another role. They are not an employee.
They do not have "rights".
They are a business wanting to supply services to clients.
The client is not rejecting them. The client has made requests, and if the OP decides to reject those requests, then the OP has decided to rule themselves out of working for that client.

Reverse parking is the same in petro-chemical companies for a slightly different reason

When you want people offsite - you want them offsite as quickly as humanly possible - reversing adds time you may not have.

[WTFH]

Another dull story about rules that apply to people in the "office" as well as those at other locations:
I've done some work for clients in the construction industry. On their sites, they insist that all powered vehicles are reverse parked. The main reason is that for lorries it is essential safety to reverse park cause the driver can then see clearly when they are pulling out.
Apply the rule to everyone on every site, even those where there are no lorries and you have a corporate safety policy. It's nothing to do with IR35, trying to exclude people, etc. It's their safety policy.

We don't have all the facts from the OP as to who the client is, but we're aware it's in the nuclear industry and requires security clearance. It is possible that the client has policies in place across all sites. We don't know.
The OP is a contractor. If they do not want to agree to a client request then they need to look for another role. They are not an employee.
They do not have "rights".
They are a business wanting to supply services to clients.
The client is not rejecting them. The client has made requests, and if the OP decides to reject those requests, then the OP has decided to rule themselves out of working for that client.

[LondonManc]

Thanks Eek, it's not Sellafield but you make a valid point. I see there's a lot of Sellafield jobs on the boards recently that are explicitly inside IR35. That casts a little doubt on my ltd model but there are plenty of other opportunities to work for them indirectly through the second tier.

The problem with Sellafield is that if you're inside IR35, expenses become prohibitive for many that would normally consider it.
£450-500/day outside IR35 at Sellafield would make it worth my while with a 2.5 hour journey each way (I'd stay over the four nights), but with no expenses, that's a hell of a bottom line change.